Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

You may be missing the point. What we do find are very distinct layers. Within those layers we find very specific fossils. We do not find fossils of marine mammals in the layers where we find marine dinosaurs. Never. Nyet. Nada. Nowhere.And we never find marine dinosaurs in the layers with marine mammals. Never. Nyet. Nada. Nowhere.we never find recent critters with the older fossils. Never. Nyet. Nada. Nowhere.I don't think you really understand just how persuasive the fossil record is. Even though you don't believe in it right now, you really should take about two weeks and really look at the evidence that is out there. You've done your homework over at ICR and AIG and the other Creationist sites. Now look at the record that GOD left. Put aside the Creo Sites and go to the source. I think you'll find that GOD hasn't been lying to you. The info is there and it is compelling.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Arkathon,Thanks. I (and apparently Lam) feel that the discussion is getting lost in the din of too many back-and-forth questions.Would you please state what the evidence is in the "Rockies" case, and how you specifically interpret it to support the Flood? as opposed to a evo/geo explanation?I really am trying to understand your point of view here...(As a side-note in reply to a comment you made: I'm sure you would call me an "evo" but I love faith and spirit, I don't hate it.)

quote:

---

An urge to be together? Together with what? The same species as themselves?

---

Instinct in animals is amazing. I was driving a quit road a few weeks ago, and saw 2 baby deer, who could hardly stand, they were so young and legs wobbly. Probably born that day, maybe even minutes or hours ago. I pulled over, the mom must've signalled the young ones, as one ran a few feet into tall grass, and played dead, and the other squatted right there on the gravel roadside and did the same. The mom then crossed the road to divert our attention away from the young, and slowly moved farther away from us, pretending to eat grass, yet would be sure to stay visible, like between 2 trees, instead of behind one. I left, as I didn't want to endander the deer, and attract other vehicles, but I was impressed the the program these creatures came with built right in, even the ones maybe a few hours old! I have heard also, as I think I mentioned, how in a disaster, like a fire animals were seen to huddle together in a safe place (no I have no reference for this one) like a cave above water, and suspend their usual relationship of prey/hunter, till the danger passes, when they will kick right back into a normal mode. So, I simply suggested that in a worldwide disaster, perhaps God put it in them to know they were maybe going to die, (or possibly) and an instinct to be together with their family, or 'kind' may have kicked in. Of course where plants were buried together sch a factor would not be present.

quote:

---

And we never find marine dinosaurs in the layers with marine mammals.

---

Just last year I think it was I read headlines about a part of a marine dino incredibly well preserved found on or near a beach. I actually think it was Loch Ness? (the lake I mean, not the dino) Anyone remember the story? Anyhow, point is if this was near a beach, there could have been mammals around? Say a seal or something? And if conditions were right for fossilization, voila, we just abiout had one right there!
So why then would water dinosaurs have tended to get buried in seperate layers in the flood time?
News in Science - Antarctic dinosaurs found in icy graves - 01/03/2004
Some seem to have been found on the bottom of the sea!! Now they speculate it must have 'died and floated out to sea' ha. What does this sound like? Nevertheless about that nyada stuff, there it is, 'sleeping with the fish. hee hee.
"Thousands of kilometres away, scientists found the fossilised pelvis of a plant eater up a mountain at 3900 meters above sea level." Oh my, hat was the poor thing doing 12000 feet up? Hmm, hey, there is even evidence of water right there--wait, they say it was a "riverbed" gee, what else they gonna say? ha. I wonder if the "river" (yeah right) had any fish or muscrats? Hmm, this is just one article I pulled up. You really should be careful trying to pull people's legs! (or were you duped to?)

Let's give up on this maroon.........

Not at all sure what point you are trying to make. But so far nothing you've posted has anything to do with what I've said.Can you try to show what relations you see between your post and what I have said?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You said no fish and dinos. I showed you a few.

Hey Arkathon,I'm really trying to be helpful here - when reading your posts you usually give a link or 'fact', claim to have defeated your opponents' arguments without further comment, and then write rambling jokey comments that don't help your argument at all.I read your linked reference; please provide:1) The point you are trying to make.
2) How the evidence you present supports your point or contradicts your opponent's point.Since the reference says absolutely nothing about other fossil types found in the same geological layer as the dinosaurs, I'm not sure how your point is proved.Just because the dinosaur fossils were found at an ocean bottom or mountaintop does NOT mean that fish or muskrat fossils were found in the same layer - that is a very simplistic view of things...The current exposure of geologic layers to the environment says nothing about the organisms fossilized there ages ago.You feel you have trounced your opponent with the "it died and floated out to sea" reference as proving Flood-fossil-shuffling, but your own source contradicts that point: Also, please restate your "Rockies" Flood evidence when you get a chance.Thanks.

I said marine mammals and marine dinosaurs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As a follow-up to my previous post: As a clarification, you showed dinosaur fossils where you believe fish (or marine mammals) could live now.You have NOT shown dinosaur and mammal fossils in the same layer, which is the point of contention here.

quote:

---

The current exposure of geologic layers to the environment says nothing about the organisms fossilized there ages ago.

---

Yes but the 'ages ago' part is not proven. Anyhow, I just thought it was interseting that dinos were found in the sea, where there are lots of fish, and marine mammals, whether or not they were fossilized, still they were found 'together'. Also 12000 feet up, in water remains. I don't really value the parts where they fall into the dull mind numbing usual old age senility of trying to fit everything in the religious evolutionary view. I don't need the evo spinners silly has been take on dinos in the clouds in water.
I didn't have some Rockies evidence, other than how there are hundreds of miles of rock formations there comprised of what looks like shattered victims of the flood. I was thinking someone might get into it a little, and I may have piped up a little, but that's about it, I was trying to derail the 'answer all my problems and all layers everywhere now, or we'll keep holding kids hostage to this stuff' kind of line- and bring up a specific.

Yes, true, I know that, I was just putting the suspects at the scene of the crime.

Hopefully you've realized that you need to put fossilized "suspects" at the crime scene, and not live ones. This point is separate of the age of the fossils.Imagine an earthquake or erosion opening a chasm in the desert, revealing a dinosaur fossil at its bottom. Just because vultures, rattlesnakes, and coyotes now have access to the fossil, does not mean they will exist in fossilized form in that same layer.No one here is arguing about whether or not dinosaur fossils are in the sea bed.

That is very problematic to me. You are railing against the evos on this board and their "dull mind numbing usual old age senility of trying to fit everything in the religious evolutionary view."Those are very strong (offensive) words, considering we are past 80 posts on this (sequel) thread, your posts probably make up one-third of them, and you now admit you haven't given a single piece of evidence against this "dull mind numbing usual old age senility".Since you are armed with only a plethora of bare assertions, I wouldn't talk so rudely or proudly. Not a single shred of evidence?(And please keep in mind that many on this board have family and friends whose lives have been ripped apart by "old age senility" that you toss around like a casual insult.)

quote:

---

That is very problematic to me

---

Fossil full formations are one of the things, generally speaking, I consider evidence of a worldwide catastrophe. As I said, I haven't seem much to get concerned with over the lack of evo facts either. Sorry if you thought I was some creation superman with an agenda, and some conclusive Rockies material prepared.
The old age stuff refers to the old ages assigned to things by evos. Not to my parents or someone elses, or grandparents in the close of life. Senile "..pertaining to the failings of old age" (dictionary) in the analogy, the failings of evolution.

quote:

---

and you now admit you haven't given a single piece of evidence

---

Why 'shoot' if there are no ducks? I gave them every opportunity to come out and play. (Oh, better watch out so many in places like Iraq or US cities have really been shot, this might cause them mental
anguish)

quote:

---

Since you are armed with only a plethora of bare assertions, I wouldn't talk so rudely or proudly. Not a single shred of evidence?

---

How dare an evolutionist say that! Look who's talking. Didn't Margeret Meade say something like, -"Though I am a confirmed evolutionist, I must admit that there is not one iota of proof"!